Obsession with stats

shockandroll

New Member
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
0
This topic makes me laugh, because we all use them to our advantage or to diffuse someone else's argument and likely contradict ourselves along the way.

For example, I like to use Romo's completion percentage, total yards, TD's, 1st down % and long pass plays to point out his strengths. I also like to point out that his INT's are actually somewhat low for a QB who throws as much as he does and has as many positive stats, sounds reasonable.

Of course, when you look at the fact that 3 INT's came in the second half of one game that pretty much blew the game, my argument under values how important some of his picks have been. (Luckily there is a lot more to my argument then just stats)

On the other hand, some people are ticked off that Dez does not have a 100 yard game yet, as if that's all that matters. I've heard people complain that Robinson already has a few, we need to get the ball to Dez! Meanwhile, we won a few games because of what Robinson did and fact is, Dez and the other guys drew enough attention which is what freed Robinson up for those catches. People complained about games we won because Dez did not get 100 yards!

Does it matter if a RB averages 2.4 yards a carry but has 22 TD's on the year? Who cares how many sacks Ware has as long as the D holds the other team to less than 17 every week?

Stats are a tool, no more, no less. But they are only part of the equation. There are many who put too much value on stats and others not enough. It's a delicate balance.

Not none of you knows stats like I do. Not you, not you, not you and not you. Not nobody knows stats like I do. Actually, that's not true but it sounded funny to me so I said it.

What is true is we all tend to misuse stats or ignore them too much from time to time. It does matter and is relevant that Romo is top ten in almost every positive stat, while dealing with broken ribs and hurt WR's, RB's and linemen. It also matters that while his INT total is not horrific, 3 of them came in the second half of a game we would have otherwise won. Neither is the only factor, but both are important when evaluating the team.

Used properly and not dismissed by those with an agenda, stats help us to find the truth. Misused, stats have been shown to cause decreased sexual activity, internal bleeding and may have led to the NBA lockout, they're that important.

What does this all mean? It means most of us need to do a better job of learning how to evaluate our team. It means just because someone uses a stat or stats to make a point, another should not just dismiss it because they used stats. It also means, one should not ignore negative stats when using the positive ones to make their point. It further means that it does not matter if 95% of the stats were positive if the 5% cost us the game.

I of course reserve the right to forget I made this post the next time I need to manipulate the stats in my favor, so you might want to save a section of this post to throw in my face at a later date.
 
I think UFCRules had the best response about stats. He said they're like a bikini. They reveal a lot but cover up the important things -- something like that.
 
Like any tool, stats are helpful in certain situation, but have their limitations.
 
The Emperor;4238139 said:
I think UFCRules had the best response about stats. He said they're like a bikini. They reveal a lot but cover up the important things -- something like that.

It was a great line.
 
2h3wxeq.gif


defuse, not diffuse
 
pupulehaole;4238136 said:
I for one love tacos.

And pie. But not together, that would be weird.

Although they could metaphorically stand for something else too...
 
shockandroll;4238146 said:
Really? That's all you got? You could have at least said something about tacos or pie.

Spamming threads with taco jpegs really ain't my thing, but bad grammar is a sin.
 
bbgun;4238150 said:
Spamming threads with taco jpegs really ain't my thing, but bad grammar is a sin.

meh, it's Friday night and I was out with the boys, I'm surprised I did not have more typos.

I'm really surprised you did not jump on my pointing out the negative stuff about Romo. I usually don't do that.
 
I think I know stats pretty well, since I work as a statistician.

As one poster said, they are tools that help influence decisions.

Imagine you want to chop down a tree. You can have plenty of tools to do so. But, you can poor tools like a sledgehammer or good tools like an axe, or great tools like a chainsaw.

Part of the issue, and even baseball has suffered from this, is that the people that originally came up with the traditional metrics, never really examined to see how well they correlate to winning or losing. They also didn't quite foresee how some stats were woefully incomplete.






YR
 
bbgun;4238150 said:
Spamming threads with taco jpegs really ain't my thing, but bad grammar is a sin.

Yet climbing a tree on the other side of the street to peep on Woody's Girl is love. :)
 
Yakuza Rich;4238157 said:
I think I know stats pretty well, since I work as a statistician.

As one poster said, they are tools that help influence decisions.

Imagine you want to chop down a tree. You can have plenty of tools to do so. But, you can poor tools like a sledgehammer or good tools like an axe, or great tools like a chainsaw.

Part of the issue, and even baseball has suffered from this, is that the people that originally came up with the traditional metrics, never really examined to see how well they correlate to winning or losing. They also didn't quite foresee how some stats were woefully incomplete.

YR

Great points, I agree. By the way, I was kidding when I said nobody knows stats like me.

What you said is exactly my point, they are tools but need to be used properly. You don't use a hammer to replace a hard drive.

This site lacks a sense of humor by the way.
 
Dallas Cowboys Fan;4238174 said:
Agreed 100%. A good example of this is the Cowboys offensive line.

Did you agree with the tacos, the pie, that grammar is more important than stats or with me? I'm confused!
 
Football is a very situational game and most stats track players total game or season rendering them irrelevant in many instances
 
hlh_8728;4238191 said:
Football is a very situational game and most stats track players total game or season rendering them irrelevant in many instances

I don't agree at all, but value your opinion none the less. I don't agree because of what I and others have said in this thread, stats are a tool. They need to be used in conjunction with other tools to tell the entire story.

For example, if Witten has 1200 yards and Bennett has 300, Bennett looks like a chump. But if Witten has 2 TD's and Bennett has 10 plus is credited with 6 key blocks that led to TD's, he's a stud.

It's about the total picture, the big picture. Not the small one.

For example, Rogers had 18.3 turnovers a year the last 3, which is a lot. But he had 28.6 passing TD's which offset them. Meanwhile Romo had 16.3 turnovers but only 21 TD's. You can't look at one without the other, but many do.

Then you have to factor injuries, quality of the line, play calling, penalties and tacos.

It's very complex but most are not willing to dive into anything more than, player X fumbled, he sucks.
 
shockandroll;4238211 said:
I don't agree at all, but value your opinion none the less. I don't agree because of what I and others have said in this thread, stats are a tool. They need to be used in conjunction with other tools to tell the entire story.

For example, if Witten has 1200 yards and Bennett has 300, Bennett looks like a chump. But if Witten has 2 TD's and Bennett has 10 plus is credited with 6 key blocks that led to TD's, he's a stud.

It's about the total picture, the big picture. Not the small one.

For example, Rogers had 18.3 turnovers a year the last 3, which is a lot. But he had 28.6 passing TD's which offset them. Meanwhile Romo had 16.3 turnovers but only 21 TD's. You can't look at one without the other, but many do.

Then you have to factor injuries, quality of the line, play calling, penalties and tacos.

It's very complex but most are not willing to dive into anything more than, player X fumbled, he sucks.

In a way you are agreeing with me it seems. If you account for all of the situations that arise in a game and quantify them then yeah, statistics are useful. If you wanna argue who is the better QB Romo or Eli and you throw out completion percentage and QB rating then you're missing far too much.

There is obviously a reason why coaches chart games and pay attention to tendencies. The thread seemed to be discussing fans on the board using general statistics to diffuse arguments or pump up their own agendas. As far as that goes I stand by my post. If you're talking about really diving into every number and breaking it down based on situations and accounting for as many variables as possible you can paint a more accurate picture with statistics.

I do appreciate that we can have a disagreement and it doesn't devolve into "you're a moron who doesn't know football"
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,005
Messages
14,506,017
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top